Commissioner REDING confirmed that „Besides, with José Manuel Barroso, we have a very good and active president, whom I admire for his strength, his legal mind, his patience and his wisdom in managing the current crisis. He is by the way a couple of years younger than I. So my personal wish would be that José Manuel stays on for a third term. Because I am sure that we need continuity and stability at the helm of governments in the years to come to continue to make Europe stronger and more resilient to future crises.”

There is nothing personal in my opinion you’ll read below. Let’s make it clear: I am a personal fan of Mr BARROSO and I appreciate very much his efforts to keep the European idea alive. Do you still remember the roars of the EU lion at the G20 summit? In addition to that the whole discussion about a possible third term isn’t fair for Mr BARROSO in some way since it wasn’t he who launched this public discussion inconvenient for him. Nonetheless, Mr BARROSO bears personal responsibility as the Commission’s President what the Commissioners say since he is their boss after all. And even the words of the Commission’s vice-president cannot make an exception.

Having said that, I cannot subscribe to a potential third term of Mr BARROSO because of several reasons. May I mention just 3 of them.

REASON 1: a third term is not fully democratic in the sense that variety is the core principle of democracy. Varietas Delectat. Democracy is about making choices and the more choices we have the better. Even the United States, one of the oldest democratic federal state of the world decided to limit the presidential mandate to 2 terms maximum, after seeing the so called ‘Roosevelt phenomenon’. Why shouldn’t the EU follow this example?

REASON 2: a third term is not effective enough. The EU has as many as cca. 500 million habitants– a quite many of them could be potential candidates. Shall we throw away the possibility of using all advantages of these talents? We could let fresh air coming into the European framework instead of keeping the usual way of doing businesses.

REASON 3: a third term is not flexible but rigid. One of the usual arguments in favour of that initiative is the need for stability. As a Hungarian EU Presidency veteran, I can well remember the often quoted arguments in order to replace to rotating 6 months Council Presidencies with a permanent one. Well, the EU has made already a timid step to that direction with the inclusion of the permanent president of the European Council to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) who is Mr VAN ROMPUY for the time being. However, we can clearly see that the simple permanent position cannot be alone the solution.

What is my proposition?
I agree that Europe need (if you like: urgent) changes – including the institutional framework. And yes, there are still good possibilities to improve the quality of the high political management of the EU. Let’s have a look on the acts, statements, opinion of Mr. VAN ROMPUY and of Mr BARROSO: there are not so many differences between them and even the existing ones aren’t really relevant. The tandem at the top of the EU makes extremely difficult the effective action of the EU and causes confusions in the global political dialogues.

Let’s make things easier and more simple: let’s elect one single person as the President of either the Commission and the European Council.

I have good news for those who are afraid of a time consuming Treaty change in that regard: no Treaty change is required for that purpose. Based on the current text of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), a common COM-CEU President is possible. Actually, it is more than possible: it is highly recommended.

Conclusion

So please, Mr BARROSO, don’t play with the fire. With all due respect, we recognise and admire your personal skills and excellent job you have done as the esteemed President of the Commission. But please, do not run for a third term!

My nutshell summary: YES for the heritage of Barroso I-II, but NO for Barroso III.

“11/10/2012 1:38:29 AM – G.Leese, zimazimoj@mail.ru
Hello Zoltán. Tell me please, who declared Safarov as ” man of the year”? The National-Democratic Party of Azerbaijan, there were 20 members of the party? The party that has no weight and authority in Azerbaijan …
Why you do not write about the fact that almost all the National Heroes of Armenia – are murderers and terrorists, to destroy the Azerbaijani civilian population for 100 years and so exciting land of Azerbaijanis? Why you do not write about human rights of Azerbaijanis, the expulsion of Armenians from Armenia, Karabakh and seven districts of Azerbaijan? Why do not you write about the thousands killed by Armenians Azerbaijanis, destruction Agdam, Fizuli, Ter-Ter, Shusha, Lachin, Jebrail, Khojaly? Why you do not write the truth about the war, Armenians claim to the neighbors, the distortion of historical documents, about the humanitarian catastrophe that was in Azerbaijan due to the hundreds of thousands of refugees? Why on Azerbaijan daily published tonn hypocritical, false information, and the Armenian criminals, murderers of civilians are not condemned, but help to them ?”

As regards your clarification, it is very important to know that the “Man of the Year” title not as serious as it seemed from Europe, and it is good to now if the Armenian society do not consider Safarov as a national hero.

Concerning your series of questions, I can only tell you the 2 basic reasons which motivate me when I choose the subject of my entry. 1. First, there must be some relevance to the European Union 2. And secondly, either I have a firm opinion on the case or it can be considered as somehow interesting for the reader.

I admit that I do not have the required in debth knowledge concerning the Armenian-Azeri conflict. But in the Safarov case, I had enough experiences/opinions that I could make a public comment on that unique case.

I repeated several times that I cannot and will not make justice between Armenia and Azerbaijan. I was involved this unique Safarov case as a clerk in the very pust and my critic focused mainly on Hungary, which made – in my opinion – a legal mistake in that particular case.

The fact that I did not write about the cases you mentioned do not mean that they would not be true. As soon as the above mentioned condition will be fulfilled I would be more than happy to dedicate a blog entry to those questions, as well.

Finally, an editorial remark: your comment touches upon the case of Ramil Safarov/Azerbaijan. Although I answered it here , I think it would have been better suited to the entry number 4 (Thoughts on the Margin of the European Parliament’s Decision Concerning the Reports on the Negotiation of the EU-Azerbaijan and of the EU-Armenia Association Agreement) or to the entry number 36 (Unprecedented International Legal Mistake from an EU Member State: Hungary Delivered the Axe Murderer to Azerbaijan : c’est plus qu’un crime, c’est une faute )

Adamant Hungarian advocate for better public health, lost in Europe.
“The only wealth which you will keep forever is the wealth you have given away.” ~Marcus Aurelius

About: Hungarian-European Citizen for Better Health

Zoltán is a passionate campaigner, manager and facilitator, strongly committed to the public interest throughout his professional career. As a Hungarian qualified lawyer, he has a proven record on effective campaign management and advocacy, including staff management and fundraising activities. He is a coalition builder and believes in the need to fight inequalities and social injustice. His competencies are based on effectively delivered projects, consultancy services to member organisations and campaigns. In addition to his native Hungarian, Zoltán is fluent in English, French and German. You can contact me at: zoltanmassaykosubek@yahoo.com